[INTJ] The compassionate INTJ ...

[SillySapienne]

Any INTJ with a well developed Fi will be compassionate, period.

 

[uumlau]

This is interesting. I think INTP's show compassion precisely in order to get along - not purely selfishly just because my Fe drives me to organize my surroundings according to the need for cohesion and inclusion - I like to see a group function and each person to have a role. It's adaptable to circumstance and I wear it outwardly.

With the INTJ then it's the opposite I guess, deep attachment to certain values or people which when touched will motivate great compassion, but when not "unleashed", will appear absent.

So in other words you're all softer on the inside than INTP's? </runs for cover>

Based on my INTP and ENTP friends, this is a very accurate summary, including the INTJs are "all softer on the inside than INTPs." Our inner, subjective core is emotional. When things happen that "should" inspire emotion, we either react with all of our being, or none of it. Reacting emotionally to mundane social events is thus either extremely wearing (because when we feel, we feel), or very "fake" (thus making us feel icky and insincere). Because we prefer the thinking, analytical approach, it becomes easy and practiced to both seem unaffected (when the emotions are strong), or more usually to actually be unaffected by events that would upset others. Te just comes to the fore and analyzes, and if a solution is found, the Fi side is calm and unworried.

What happens in later life is that the control of the Fi is more precise, shall we say. It's hard to describe how utterly intense the emotions are, because our whole being is affected. (I believe Fe, while it still feels emotions, is more practiced at feeling them as somewhat apart from oneself. I don't do Fe, so this is mostly speculation based on my Te understanding.) However, with a degree of self-control, it's possible to focus and set the "Fi-level" to something appropriate. An analogy would be using biofeedback to control one's own heart rate. With this control, I can show warmth and affection without being so intense that it's creepy, or so clunky and awkward as when controlled by Te.

The difficulty of reaching this level of control of Fi is that one has to expose oneself to that potential level of pain and uncontrolled emotion, and then master it. It's impossible to just stick in your toe: you get sucked in. After getting sucked in, you learn to steady yourself within that turmoil of emotions: that even as you feel the pain (or even as you feel oh so intense a love/infatuation, which can be even worse), you learn to ride it out. After going through it, and processing it, and understanding it, you own it. Rather than fearing it, you embrace it.

It is a trial by fire that I suspect every INTJ spends years and decades avoiding, and thus remain cold and hard on the outside.

So yeah, for a young INTJ, we're way softer on the inside than INTPs, which is why we always seem so hard. Very very few people get to see that soft side. For an older INTJ, "soft" is no longer an apt description. It is "gentle," but ferociously strong. It is only by being strong, internally, that we can even be gentle.

 

[SillySapienne]

What happens in later life is that the control of the Fi is more precise, shall we say. It's hard to describe how utterly intense the emotions are, because our whole being is affected. (I believe Fe, while it still feels emotions, is more practiced at feeling them as somewhat apart from oneself. I don't do Fe, so this is mostly speculation based on my Te understanding.) However, with a degree of self-control, it's possible to focus and set the "Fi-level" to something appropriate. An analogy would be using biofeedback to control one's own heart rate. With this control, I can show warmth and affection without being so intense that it's creepy, or so clunky and awkward as when controlled by Te.

The difficulty of reaching this level of control of Fi is that one has to expose oneself to that potential level of pain and uncontrolled emotion, and then master it. It's impossible to just stick in your toe: you get sucked in. After getting sucked in, you learn to steady yourself within that turmoil of emotions: that even as you feel the pain (or even as you feel oh so intense a love/infatuation, which can be even worse), you learn to ride it out. After going through it, and processing it, and understanding it, you own it. Rather than fearing it, you embrace it.

It is a trial by fire that I suspect every INTJ spends years and decades avoiding, and thus remain cold and hard on the outside.

So yeah, for a young INTJ, we're way softer on the inside than INTPs, which is why we always seem so hard. Very very few people get to see that soft side. For an older INTJ, "soft" is no longer an apt description. It is "gentle," but ferociously strong. It is only by being strong, internally, that we can even be gentle.

 

[Kalach]

Pansies.


When will people learn, Fi isn't feeling. Having a feeling is but a single item in Fi, while Fi itself is a value system generated off the back of various affective experiences. Naturally of course, actual feelings will take Fi itself as a guide as it gets better at deciding, so there is some ongoing, generative relationship. But meanwhile, all this having of feelings crap that people call the soft insides... you'll be soooooorry.

Or something like that. But there is some whole thing to go on about here on the difference between a cognitive function and an affective state.

 

[uumlau]

When will people learn, Fi isn't feeling. Having a feeling is but a single item in Fi,

true ...

while Fi itself is a value system generated off the back of various affective experiences.

Sort of true, but so damn abstract that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how true it is, it doesn't translate into anything concrete enough to share between people.

Let's just say that Fi is a lot more than "a value system." There's a reason I resort to metaphors when discussing Fi. If the metaphor works, I show others the path to get there and understand it for themselves. If I explain it as "a value system," they get all concrete and think it's a set of rules like the ten commandments, which is so far from the truth I may as well be telling stories about the Great Pumpkin.

Naturally of course, actual feelings will take Fi itself as a guide as it gets better at deciding, so there is some ongoing, generative relationship. But meanwhile, all this having of feelings crap that people call the soft insides... you'll be soooooorry.

Yes, there is a difference between "being emotional" and "Fi." I believe, however, it is accurate to say that "Fi" is largely one's ability to process, to comprehend, to own one's emotions, in general. As a tertiary for INTJ, it starts off as the ability to just silence one's own emotions and decide, in an Fi way, that logic is the proper course of action, at which point, all one's decisions, for good or ill, go through Te.

Or something like that. But there is some whole thing to go on about here on the difference between a cognitive function and an affective state.

Don't get so lost in the words that you miss the message being sent. Language is extremely limited in expressing these ideas. I'm trying to make words jump and play tricks for which they were never intended. I'd use Zen koans, but that would just result in more confusion, and I'd use poetry, but then I'd have to change my name from "uumlau" to "Vogon."

 

[Zarathustra]

Sort of true, but so damn abstract that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how true it is...

+1!

Damn, fool!!

You just got pimp-slapped by UUMLAU!!!

 

[Zarathustra]

^ was that Fi speaking?!?

 

[Kalach]

true ...

Sort of true, but so damn abstract that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how true it is, it doesn't translate into anything concrete enough to share between people.

Let's just say that Fi is a lot more than "a value system." There's a reason I resort to metaphors when discussing Fi. If the metaphor works, I show others the path to get there and understand it for themselves. If I explain it as "a value system," they get all concrete and think it's a set of rules like the ten commandments, which is so far from the truth I may as well be telling stories about the Great Pumpkin.

Fair enough, I guess.

How about "subjective evaluation system"?

The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision.

Seems to me that all the introverted functions do more than simply contain the items of that function. There is also some kind of inner generative thing going on. In the case of introverted feeling, one presumes it is values that are generated. Felt values. So Fi is as affective as feeling itself. Somehow. But seemingly, often, more as a goal than as currently gooey inside.

Yes, there is a difference between "being emotional" and "Fi." I believe, however, it is accurate to say that "Fi" is largely one's ability to process, to comprehend, to own one's emotions, in general.

Dunno. That sounds like an Fi value rather than Fi itself. For instance, that statement doesn't make a difference between Fe and Fi feeling.

Quite possibly--well, in fact notoriously--introverted feeling is difficult to label or directly express. Art and whatnot is needed. But as to what Fi is... it's a cognitive function, perhaps no more opaque than any of the others when it comes to making up a definition. (Within existing model theory, that is.)




I am of course just making all this up, but surely if F is to be a judgment function, for example one that provokes compassion, then there is more to it than "I had a feeling."





"Pimp-slapped"? Isn't being too abstract a point of pride? I'll have to adjust my notions of praise.

 

[Zarathustra]

"Pimp-slapped"? Isn't being too abstract a point of pride? I'll have to adjust my notions of praise.

I think direct-and-to-the-pointedness is much more deserving of pride than over-abstractness...

 

[Kalach]

(... he says, finishing the sentence with ellipsis.)

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[Thalassa]

Based on my INTP and ENTP friends, this is a very accurate summary, including the INTJs are "all softer on the inside than INTPs." Our inner, subjective core is emotional. When things happen that "should" inspire emotion, we either react with all of our being, or none of it. Reacting emotionally to mundane social events is thus either extremely wearing (because when we feel, we feel), or very "fake" (thus making us feel icky and insincere). Because we prefer the thinking, analytical approach, it becomes easy and practiced to both seem unaffected (when the emotions are strong), or more usually to actually be unaffected by events that would upset others. Te just comes to the fore and analyzes, and if a solution is found, the Fi side is calm and unworried.

What happens in later life is that the control of the Fi is more precise, shall we say. It's hard to describe how utterly intense the emotions are, because our whole being is affected. (I believe Fe, while it still feels emotions, is more practiced at feeling them as somewhat apart from oneself. I don't do Fe, so this is mostly speculation based on my Te understanding.) However, with a degree of self-control, it's possible to focus and set the "Fi-level" to something appropriate. An analogy would be using biofeedback to control one's own heart rate. With this control, I can show warmth and affection without being so intense that it's creepy, or so clunky and awkward as when controlled by Te.

The difficulty of reaching this level of control of Fi is that one has to expose oneself to that potential level of pain and uncontrolled emotion, and then master it. It's impossible to just stick in your toe: you get sucked in. After getting sucked in, you learn to steady yourself within that turmoil of emotions: that even as you feel the pain (or even as you feel oh so intense a love/infatuation, which can be even worse), you learn to ride it out. After going through it, and processing it, and understanding it, you own it. Rather than fearing it, you embrace it.

It is a trial by fire that I suspect every INTJ spends years and decades avoiding, and thus remain cold and hard on the outside.

So yeah, for a young INTJ, we're way softer on the inside than INTPs, which is why we always seem so hard. Very very few people get to see that soft side. For an older INTJ, "soft" is no longer an apt description. It is "gentle," but ferociously strong. It is only by being strong, internally, that we can even be gentle.

btw, the bolded part is more obvious that you guys realize

 

[sculpting]

btw, the bolded part is more obvious that you guys realize

Marm, I am new to emotions-can you translate that string of emoticons for me?? It's giving me emo-seizures. So many feeeeeelings......

 

[Thalassa]

Marm, I am new to emotions-can you translate that string of emoticons for me?? It's giving me emo-seizures. So many feeeeeelings......

First and foremost, the frowny face is sad for myself for having to put up with young INTJs being cold or withdrawing into their hard shell, but the crying is for them...for the INTJs soft on the inside and afraid of allowing themselves to feel, for the INTJs who are afraid of "being so intense it's creepy" (is that what they think of us NFPs???), then the wubbie is loving them for being what they are, and the smile is for Uumlau contributing his wonderful post and describing the gentleness of older INTJs.

Is that confusing or what?

 

[uumlau]

btw, the bolded part is more obvious that you guys realize

First and foremost, the frowny face is sad for myself for having to put up with young INTJs being cold or withdrawing into their hard shell, but the crying is for them...for the INTJs soft on the inside and afraid of allowing themselves to feel, for the INTJs who are afraid of "being so intense it's creepy" (is that what they think of us NFPs???), then the wubbie is loving them for being what they are, and the smile is for Uumlau contributing his wonderful post and describing the gentleness of older INTJs.

Is that confusing or what?

It isn't confusing at all, my dear Marmalade.

 

[tcda]

Based on my INTP and ENTP friends, this is a very accurate summary, including the INTJs are "all softer on the inside than INTPs." Our inner, subjective core is emotional. When things happen that "should" inspire emotion, we either react with all of our being, or none of it. Reacting emotionally to mundane social events is thus either extremely wearing (because when we feel, we feel), or very "fake" (thus making us feel icky and insincere). Because we prefer the thinking, analytical approach, it becomes easy and practiced to both seem unaffected (when the emotions are strong), or more usually to actually be unaffected by events that would upset others. Te just comes to the fore and analyzes, and if a solution is found, the Fi side is calm and unworried.

What happens in later life is that the control of the Fi is more precise, shall we say. It's hard to describe how utterly intense the emotions are, because our whole being is affected. (I believe Fe, while it still feels emotions, is more practiced at feeling them as somewhat apart from oneself. I don't do Fe, so this is mostly speculation based on my Te understanding.) However, with a degree of self-control, it's possible to focus and set the "Fi-level" to something appropriate. An analogy would be using biofeedback to control one's own heart rate. With this control, I can show warmth and affection without being so intense that it's creepy, or so clunky and awkward as when controlled by Te.

The difficulty of reaching this level of control of Fi is that one has to expose oneself to that potential level of pain and uncontrolled emotion, and then master it. It's impossible to just stick in your toe: you get sucked in. After getting sucked in, you learn to steady yourself within that turmoil of emotions: that even as you feel the pain (or even as you feel oh so intense a love/infatuation, which can be even worse), you learn to ride it out. After going through it, and processing it, and understanding it, you own it. Rather than fearing it, you embrace it.

It is a trial by fire that I suspect every INTJ spends years and decades avoiding, and thus remain cold and hard on the outside.

So yeah, for a young INTJ, we're way softer on the inside than INTPs, which is why we always seem so hard. Very very few people get to see that soft side. For an older INTJ, "soft" is no longer an apt description. It is "gentle," but ferociously strong. It is only by being strong, internally, that we can even be gentle.

This definitely makes sense to me, and the difference between mature INTJs and immature ones is very perceptible. I tried to express something (though less elegantly and comprehensibvely)along those lines in the recent thread on "how INTPs and INTJs view each other":

I get on well, though I find there's a divide between the contented "chilled out" ones who have settled on a role in the world, and the "angsty" ones who have not yet - definitely get on with the former more easily.

 

[Heart&Brain]

Pansies.


When will people learn, Fi isn't feeling. Having a feeling is but a single item in Fi, while Fi itself is a value system generated off the back of various affective experiences. Naturally of course, actual feelings will take Fi itself as a guide as it gets better at deciding, so there is some ongoing, generative relationship. But meanwhile, all this having of feelings crap that people call the soft insides... you'll be soooooorry.

Or something like that. But there is some whole thing to go on about here on the difference between a cognitive function and an affective state.

Uumlau and Zarathustra - for a relatively mature Fi-user this isn't abstract at all.

To a great extend Fi is a sensitive detector, both a bullshit-detector as well as a 'WOW!' detector. In oneself, in other people as well as in art, ethics and politics. It's an alarm that goes off when detecting something important, something to pay attention to, both good and bad. It needs processing, sorting out in introversion to identify precisely why the alarm went off. The alarm is spontaneous and almost always justified, but the ultimate judgment is a product of the closer, solitary scrutiny that follows. It gives Fi an air of 'delay' or 'timelessness' like the other introverted functions have as well.

Ti judges from the coherence of objective systems. Fi from the coherence of subjective systems.
Please understand that "subjective" does NOT signify that such systems are random and idiosyncratic, or that its elements and inner dynamics can be chosen, altered and justified as it pleases the subject consciously. A subjective system should rather be seen as the internal coherence that makes up any "Self", any individual consciousness, any interpersonal relationsship, any political or ethical worldviewand holds them together as a non-schizophrenic stable *system* of inner causes and effects.


Fi is not about making "nice" judgments. It's about making right ones. It's about assessing whether what's going on in oneself, in others, in ethics, politics and art is disconnected or coherent, fake or genuine, if it's bullshit or authentic, if it's manipulative or valuable, if it's shallow or deep.

Fi as bullshit detector is really efficient and quite merciless once turned on. :workout:


(And sure Fi tert (or otherwise positioned) is not 'gooey' per se unless some person or some cause or some idea has been scrutinised and proved worthy of such affection. In that case, the gooeyness could be seen as a more permanent pleasant alarmbell saying "attention - there's something really valuable going on in this person / cause / idea / artwork - stay tuned and enjoy!" )

 

[InvisibleJim]

I endorse this thread, but dont have the time to thank all of the contributors. I may return later and post at length once I have settled on a perspective.

 

[Heart&Brain]

I thought I’d post some more ideas on the parallel between Ti and Fi:

(- or am I derailing the question of Fi-compassion in INTJs too far...?)

If describing Fi as a detector judging principal violations or important insights of what is at all possible or not for subjective systems, in parallel I can see Ti is a detector judging principal violations or important insights of what is at all possible or not within objective systems.

Both Fi and Ti may react on concrete cases, but they do so informed by a deeper awareness of universal principles of different kinds of systemic cohesion, and not from the details of the concrete cases.
I would think noticing, judging and attempt to influence the concrete cases are more the realm of Fe and Te.

In my experience Fi judgment compells internally both Self and others to obey the deeper coherency in speech and action.
It compells us to suspect and reject expressions that triggers the wordless but loud alarm signals of "beware, bullshit risk!". These alarm bells can be feelings of discomfort, anger, amused disbelief, hurt, caution, distrust, fight&flight, pity, confusion, contempt, whatever.
The complex of such signals needs to be processed and sorted out internally (the wellknown ’delay’ of all introverted functions) to determine what they have detected exactly, how something is not adding up in the 'system' presented to us, so we can decide how to relate to it: as fake or genuine.

Ti-example:
Someone claims that the Katrina-disaster was God's punishment of New Orleans. A Ti-user doesn't need to investigate the flooding in concrete detail because if the claim was true, it would violate a whole system of coherent objective truths already invoked by talking about a city, water, dams, storms etc.
Ti thus judges the claim untrue, stupid and manipulative by principle.

Fi-example:
Someone claims "I looooove you and wish you the best" only to play blamegames and badmouth the 'loved' one in public. A Fi-user doesn't need to investigate the concrete feelings of such a person. It knows that it would violate the principles of any coherent 'self-system' if both these expressions were authentic, that is, both can't exist within the same 'Self-system'. Fi thus judges that if ’love’ meant more than a hollow posture, no way in hell could it get such an expression. Fi sees that a subjectivity-system (a self, a worldview, a relationship, an ethical philosophy) exposing itself in contradicting ways has falsified itself. It must necessarily be inauthentic, covering up real motives, possibly in some sort of denial, possibly to attempt a social manipulation, possibly to gain sympathy from the audience believing the pretentious bogus.
And yes, this goes very much for organised religion too!


Fi is introverted, merciless and complex. It’s not bulletproof, although it may feel so, and it will make bad judgments sometimes. Usually noone will notice, because it's so introverted. But when you've gained more control and confidence, you can draw upon it in an extraverted fashion.

Still Fi-users rarely verbalise in a directive way the complex behind what they judge to be right or wrong. We know that the principles of a subjective system in itself doesn't change just because it is not witnessed or accepted or believed by others. So whether I say it out loud or not is immaterial to the workings of the system itself. There's an aspect of 'why would I seek my judgments validated by others’ approval anyway'?
But as I've grown older, I'm beginning to see that it can help my Te-implementations of various idealisms if I make explicit my underlying and determining principle values too, even if I think they'd be obvious to for all to see. Well, surprise, they aren't.
Saying my value-motivations out loud can feel a bit tasteless at first, but I've discovered that it doesn't have to be. If I keep it short and unambiguous it simply makes it easier for others to see my perspective when debating a cause.
(Thus, when I'm debating religion I now try to make it explicit that it's not because it's illogical (which it is, only that's not what upsets me most), but because it's unethical.)

It's clear that it would be meaningless if a Ti-user tried to take personal pride in how physical laws or objective logic happen to work, right?

And it’s similarly meaningless for a Fi-user to boast authenticity or honesty since it is simply the rational fleshing out of the principles of coherent subjective systems. Just as it would be meaningless to Fi to legitimise contradicting actions or to claim emotional entitlement as a means to direct other people's choices or to support oneself through group-approval as in "After all I've done for you...", "Everybody, hear what he did to me..." etc.
(FYI: It's not to say that competent Fe-users do this. Because they generally don't. According to Lenore, such unpleasant emotional hickups are on the other hand precisely what immature Fe would do, more specifically tertiary Fe wrecking havock in a tertiary temptation spree.)

 

[sculpting]

Fi-example:
Someone claims "I looooove you and wish you the best" only to play blamegames and badmouth the 'loved' one in public. A Fi-user doesn't need to investigate the concrete feelings of such a person. It knows that it would violate the principles of any coherent 'self-system' if both these expressions were authentic, that is, both can't exist within the same 'Self-system'. Fi thus judges that if ’love’ meant more than a hollow posture, no way in hell could it get such an expression. Fi sees that a subjectivity-system (a self, a worldview, a relationship, an ethical philosophy) exposing itself in contradicting ways has falsified itself.

I am very wary of your “coherent self-system” as I think it may represent a version of your particular self system, which may not match that seen in other Fi users. If Fi rules get built off emotional stimuli, then the rules will differ for each person based upon their particular emotive history and subsequently developed ruleset. Thus your lack of investigation implies an innate trust of the internal ruleset and a potentially flawed mirror event of the external-thus the judgment is flawed.

Something else here-I see distinctly in myself but I have observed in EXFPs. That tert function doesn’t sit there just hanging out. It actively cojudges. Ideally it agrees with Fi, but I can distinctly split the two and see how they don’t agree. I defer to logic myself. Also overflowed emo will be funneled directly into that function and given structure. So what you observe-the perceieved badmouthing? “That guy is such a jerk” “Dump him” “But I love him” Is there any more stereotypical EXFP conversation….

Also the consistent self system you mention-that's tricky. Fi seems to be inherently authentic even if totally fucking undeveloped in folks like myself. I'd guess my Fi is actually closer to the simplicity seen in an IXTJ. The world is very simplistic emotionally, although logically has amazing complexity.

As for “public” context is your clue here. Does the person really consider the localized enviornment public? Be cautious of applying the above judgments to an anon enviornment-such as an internet forum, as it is nonrepresentative of a reality.

I do hold tight with Te accountability. You own your own shit, fucked up though it may be and you hold yourself accountable for that. A strong Te is a monsterous thing to have within you when your own Fi fails you. I am strange for instance, thus Type C is a beautiful place to explore and understand the strengths and weaknesses my uniqueness gives me. It is my Ne playground, , the ultimate place to explore emotions and understand myself and others. It is a beautiful journey.